Those are all good questions in your previous post, but what is the actual role of a marketplace?
Is craigslist a shield for people who want to give away their old appliances? Is ebay a shield for people that want to sell their old junk?
I have to disagree with this. There have been some great apps, and device types, developed by the community. None of those were done with an expectation of renumeration, yet they were done.
Take @625alex and SmartTiles for example. Alex started that project from a personal need he realized. Reading his own posts as it evolved, it was clear that by the second or third version of ActiON, he had met that personal need completely. What happened after that was spurred on by the community, and Alex’s own ambition and devotion to what he had created (which is Awesome!).
There have been numerous other great apps put together by people, perhaps at first to satisfy a need they realize, only to lead to a generalized and published version. What is awesome to me about this community is the dynamic here that leads to that sort of effort, absent any economic reward. Heck, there can’t possibly be enough economic reward available to motivate this type of work. If that’s the motivation, it won’t motivate very much! Obviously, something else has been at play.
So many people comment that the Community is a big factor in deciding to try SmartThings. This Community has evolved in a very egalitarian manner, with nothing more than our interest in the ST platform and our kindred spirit driving this evolution. That’s a good thing.
If, indeed, the Marketplace itself does not face any significant liability risk, my concerns are thus directed to the Developers who we hope would grow in number as they become attracted to the ability to sell their SmartApps.
I have a personal “beef”, for example, with companies like Uber, Lyft, and AirBnB who are more than willing to use informal labor and yet don’t assist this labor in understanding the risks that they face and actually making recommendations with respect to liabilities, insurance, licensing, taxes, etc.. So: Before the proposed marketplace of the OP is launched, I think it is important for it to have a FAQ and Resources that ensure the contributors know what they are getting into.
While I don’t disagree that it is a “good thing”, I think it is a particularly socialist philosophy and not necessarily compatible with the distinctly capitalist corporate nature of the subject matter (i.e., corporate, publicly traded Samsung and their for-profit subsidiary, SmartThings).
If I were a professional television repair person, for example, it is very unlikely I would offer to repair Samsung Ultra HD TV’s for free, and also very likely I’d be a tad upset if a significant “TV Repair Community” formed to offer this as a free service in competition with me.
The Community support model is prevalent in many platforms and, indeed, it absolutely is a key factor in the success of those platforms. Perhaps these are actual models for a future world that is less focused on earning cash and instead productivity, success, and lifestyles are sustainably supported by the informal mutual exchange of goods and services.
In the meantime, it is reasonable to see if a capitalist model can be applied here.
- Heck, there have been theoretical discussions on the concept and feasibility of “micro-payments” for a long time – i.e., when you receive support from a particular Community member or members, a small payment would automatically be transacted. Such micro-payments would be unlikely to reach the amount earned by even a “junior” SmartThings Support Technician employee – but, well, that is the ultimate goal in a financially fair world.
Ah, Occam’s Razor suggests, “This is not a business”. But, that shouldn’t stop anybody from trying. 
I’m pretty good at arguing with myself. Keeps me entertained … a bit. I’d rather bring along my virtual friends for the ride.
Um, I must have missed something. A community, by definition, is the result of collaborative contribution by its members to a common good. Are all communities, therefore, “socialist”? If so, then you gotta hand it to ST for using socialism to achieve their capitalistic ends.
Yes … we have, indeed, handed it to SmartThings. Whether it is a capitalist or purely philosophical question, it is worth pondering whether or not our efforts here ultimately result in a significant benefit to SmartThings employees, Samsung Corp, and their shareholders, more so than to the Community members and ourselves. As is pointed out frequently, we volunteer and thus aren’t expecting any tangible rewards. Some “taking” (usually “new”) Community Members who come here demanding answers, are oblivious to the effort others contribute… their naivete is understandable.
The lack of SmartThings’s effort and dropped commitment in a creating a viable Marketplace & Partnerships Program for certain types of contributors (SmartApp and Device Type developers, VARs, consultants, etc.) could be construed as a lack of … “deep appreciation” … for the value that this Community brings to their product and company.
On the other hand… The proportion of Customers that ever take advantage of the Community is still rather minuscule (5% to 10% max, perhaps?). It would not be inappropriate for Samsung to make the calculated decision that minimizing the cost of the Community, or even alienating it (!), is ultimately the least risky and most profitable decision.
Back on Topic here; I suppose we should focus on the particular value provided by “Community Developed SmartApps” (and possibly Device Types), instead of arbitrary mutual support contributions. SmartThings is one of many products in various industries that see themselves as “Platforms” and thus have specific strategies to promote. I contend that SmartThings may not be seeing themselves in the same light as a year ago. As was mentioned, the biggest risk of all to a SmartApp developer is that the popular (i.e., profitable) SmartApps are ideal candidate features to be folded into the Product, thus knocking the developer out-of-the-market.
This is not without precedent in the “App” industry (as hundreds of Apple / Android Store Apps are deprecated by new OS functionality in every generation), and we can pretty accurately guess that the most popular SmartApps are definitely on ST’s radar (i.e., SmartAlarm, SmartTiles, SmartRules, Alexa Integration, lighting management apps, …). And why not? ST has no reason to lock themselves out of lucrative “core” features.
But we are missing out on the innovations that are being held back until there is a monetary reward. Why can’t we have both?
I agree. I’m happy to help people in the community out with the smaller issues, but when I decided to undertake something bigger like SmartRules, there’s no way I could do it without some compensation for my time and resources.
Developers would be free to offer SmartApps for free, using the store mainly just for discoverability. This would undermine anyone trying to charge for the simple things, but once there are further incentives, I would expect to see more complex apps, better support, prettier designs, etc.
Because people are cheap? 
That’s the legacy of the mobile world though… they have created ecosystems where people expect free or nearly free apps with perpetual support, and you have outrage when there are new updates that require you to pay again.
That’s why you see so many apps move to the freemium model and developers supported through in-app purchases, which has led to an even crappier set of free apps with basically no functionality and where everything has to be purchased.
I can understand both sides of the story having done development and consumed these types of apps, and I don’t know that there’s a happy medium. The monetary rewards are not gonna be there for selling an app for a couple of bucks to a couple of thousand people…but if the app is expensive you’re shooting yourself in the foot, and if you start adding extra paid-for functionality people are most likely going to resent it and not pay for it.
This is the fundamental problem with an AppStore. Support.
The freemium model just doesn’t work here.
The only way is for developers to be sponsored, either by individuals who want to see their talents rewarded (without getting a job at ST) or by corporations, ie manufacturers that want to see their product integrated but don’t want to or can’t wait for ST to have the resources to dedicate to their project (or don’t have their own, or can’t afford what ST wants to charge)
Anyway… Selling a SmartApp to a consumer is not going to make anyone any profit. Period. Run a cost analysis…
Cost to incorporate a business ($500)
Cost to get insurance for liabilities ($1000+ / year)
Legally enforced minimum wage law ($15 / hour soon)
Hours to develop SmartApp (25-50)
Cost to develop app ($375 - 750)
Hours to support app (100-200 / year)
Cost to support app ($1500 - 3000)
Total 1 app, 1 year costs: ~$5,000
Number of active hubs: ~100k
% that would find you without marketing costs: 5% (based on users in this forum)
Number of people that could by said app: 5000
Price for SmartApp? $1
Assuming all the 5% bought said smartapp… You wouldn’t even break even.
This doesn’t include overhead, SG&A, marketing expenses, etc.
There isn’t a business model for an individual to do it.
However, a collective group of developers, paid to do it, could happen. It could grow quickly. A developer co-op is the way to go. It could even expand or pivot to other platforms as they emerge.
And ST is going to support this?
Why would ST support this concept anyway?
An independent developer website / co-op would insure that if ST doesn’t want us around, we COULD pivot to other platforms. If another platform emerges, then ST would have to remain competitive to keep our focus.
If ST isn’t going to provide a TRUE developer platform, then either we live with that, or start our own, independent of ST.
Or we just keep complaining about it, I’m sure that will make it better 
Sure, but that means working as a contractor, which is not possible for almost anyone who has a full-time job in the high-tech industry due to conflict of interests. Most employment agreements prohibit you from doing business with other companies without prior written authorization. It’s a sure way to get terminated. And if I wanted to do a contract job, there’re more lucrative areas than writing device handlers for SmartThings. 
Nothing about sponsoring your passion projects that would constitute a contract.
Besides. What is your plan?
Correct me if I’m wrong, if you agree to receive money in order to complete a project, that’s a contract, right?
There’s no plan. I think you and others have made a valid point: writing SmartThings apps and devices for a living is not going to work. Yes, you could land a contract or two here and there with OEMs who want to integrate with SmartThings, but I wouldn’t give up my paycheck for that.
If Sid or someone else is willing to build a community app store, that’s fine by me. I can contribute a couple of apps to support the effort, but I don’t view SmartThings as a business opportunity. SmartThings as a platform is just too fluid and flaky. APIs change without notice and break with every platform update. Fixing these “minor” issues is never a priority and takes weeks or months. Users who payed their hard-earned $1.99 for the app are not going be as forgiving as someone who paid zilch. Supporting it just isn’t worth my time.
Only if you choose to do that. In a coop model, you are just sponsored to do that you do on your own. Not required to deliver a good or service.
Think of it as art. Its more of a patronage or angel investing by those that can afford to sponsor the artists, err developer to do what they want.
No contracts, no commitments. Just contributions to the co-op.